TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Berkoz & Associates, Inc.’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 is GRANTED.

Any other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors are barred from asserting any further claims against Defendant Berkoz & Associates, Inc. based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

Defendant Berkoz & Associates, Inc. to give notice. 

REASONING

Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 enables a settling defendant to free itself not only from any further claims of the plaintiff but also from any subsequent liability to any non-settling defendant for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity. A settling defendant obtains this immunity by settling in “good faith.” Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (b), provides that the court may determine the good faith of a settlement on the basis of affidavits and counter affidavits or may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing. Section 877.6 grants the trial court broad discretion in determining whether a settlement is in good faith for purposes of that statute, and “its decision may be reversed only upon a showing of abuse of discretion.” (TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 165.)

To determine whether a settlement was in “good faith” the court should inquire as to whether the amount of the settlement is “within the reasonable range” of the settling defendant’s proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff’s injuries. (Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 858, 872.) Ultimately, the “settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant’s liability to be.” (Tech-Bilt v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt).) In determining the good faith of a settlement, the court should consider a number of factors, including: 

 

(1) A rough approximation of the total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; 

(2) The actual settlement amount; 

(3) The allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; 

(4) The recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he or she would if liability is established after trial; 

(5) The financial conditions and insurance policy limits of the settlor; and 

(6) The existence of facts showing collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants. 

(Ibid.) Furthermore, the evaluation must “be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” (Ibid.)

The party contesting the settlement bears the burden of proving that the settlement is in bad faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).) Notably, when the good faith nature of a settlement is uncontested, the Court need not consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) “[W]hen no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.” (Ibid.)

Defendant Berkoz & Associates, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves the Court for a determination of good faith settlement with Plaintiff BMB Commercial Corp. (“Plaintiff”). The unopposed application describes the background of this case and the nature of the proposed settlement. Defendant argues that it disputes liability, but it has agreed to settle with Plaintiff for $49,999 in exchange for a full release and dismissal and a mutual waiver of attorney fees and costs. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff could recover more than the settlement amount if Plaintiff were able to establish Defendant’s liability at trial, and the application provides sufficient reasoning as to why the settlement was reached in good faith. Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated a settlement made in good faith. Accordingly, Defendant Berkoz & Associates, Inc.’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 is GRANTED. Any other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors are barred from asserting any further claims against Defendant Berkoz & Associates, Inc. based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.